Proview, the Shenzhen company that is claiming trademark rights to the 'iPad' name, said it won a small legal victory on Friday as the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou handed down a ruling against the sale of Apple's ubiquitous tablet.

Citing a statement by Proview's lawyer Xie Xianghui, the Associated Press reported on Monday that the court in China's Guangdong province advised distributors to halt sales of the iPad, though it is unclear what effect the judgment will have on the ongoing dispute.

The ruling further muddies the already complex trademark battle that has seen Proview file suits against Apple in numerous courts; asking commercial authorities to block iPad sales in 40 cities.

Recent reports from customs officials in the country note that such a ban would be difficult to enforce, however, because of the popularity of the device.

There has been no official move to ban Apple's tablet in mainland China, though local authorities in select areas have seized at least 45 units.

Adding to the confusion are conflicting decisions from a December ruling in Proview's favor that is currently under appeal at the High Court in Guangdong, and an earlier ruling from a Hong Kong court that sided with Apple.

Perhaps most difficult is jurisdiction as the suit revolves around claims that Apple made an unauthorized transaction when it purchased the "iPad" name from a Taiwanese affiliate of Shenzhen's Proview Technology, which itself is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Proview International Holdings.

Proview sued Apple in 2011, claiming that not only is Apple using the "iPad" moniker illegally in China, but allege that the company surreptitiously acquired the trademark through U.K. proxy company IP Application Development in 2010.

The Chinese company is seeking $38 million in damages and an apology from the iPad maker.

Proview, the Shenzhen company that is claiming trademark rights to the 'iPad' name, said it won a small legal victory on Friday as the Intermediate People's Court in Huizhou handed down a ruling against the sale of Apple's ubiquitous tablet.

Citing a statement by Proview's lawyer Xie Xianghui, the Associated Press reported on Monday that the court in China's Guangdong province advised distributors to halt sales of the iPad, though it is unclear what effect the judgment will have on the ongoing dispute.

The ruling further muddies the already complex trademark battle that has seen Proview file suits against Apple in numerous courts; asking commercial authorities to block iPad sales in 40 cities.

Recent reports from customs officials in the country note that such a ban would be difficult to enforce, however, because of the popularity of the device.

There has been no official move to ban Apple's tablet in mainland China, though local authorities in select areas have seized at least 45 units.

Adding to the confusion are conflicting decisions from a December ruling in Proview's favor that is currently under appeal at the High Court in Guangdong, and an earlier ruling from a Hong Kong court that sided with Apple.

Perhaps most difficult is jurisdiction as the suit revolves around claims that Apple made an unauthorized transaction when it purchased the "iPad" name from a Taiwanese affiliate of Shenzhen's Proview Technology, which itself is a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Proview International Holdings.

Proview sued Apple in 2011, claiming that not only is Apple using the "iPad" moniker illegally in China, but allege that the company surreptitiously acquired the trademark through U.K. proxy company IP Application Development in 2010.

The Chinese company is seeking $38 million in damages and an apology from the iPad maker.

Why does the picture look like the original iMac in white. They even call it the original Internet computer. So this company makes a clone of an Apple design calls it an iPad instead of iMac or iPod for obvious reasons, then sells the name to Apple for a pretty penny then extorts them for more money. Apple should sue them for design infringement and make sure they close their doors for good.

Why does the picture look like the original iMac in white. They even call it the original Internet computer. So this company makes a clone of an Apple design calls it an iPad instead of iMac or iPod for obvious reasons, then sells the name to Apple for a pretty penny then extorts them for more money. Apple should sue them for design infringement and make sure they close their doors for good.

I think it's time for the WTO to get involved. If China wants to enjoy the privileges of being a player in the world economy, it's time they stop acting like some adolescent 3rd-world country, accept their responsibilities and put an end to this sort of mickey mouse shit.

Why does the picture look like the original iMac in white. They even call it the original Internet computer. So this company makes a clone of an Apple design calls it an iPad instead of iMac or iPod for obvious reasons, then sells the name to Apple for a pretty penny then extorts them for more money. Apple should sue them for design infringement and make sure they close their doors for good.

I also notice the name is really I.P.A.D. not iPad since it stands for Internet Personal Access Device, it is an acronym. I wonder why this fact hasn't been mentioned. There is surely a world of difference between the two. Of course I know you can trademark an acronym but I just wonder if this might be a loop hole.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

I also notice the name is really I.P.A.D. not iPad since it stands for Internet Personal Access Device, it is an acronym. I wonder why this fact hasn't been mentioned. There is surely a world of difference between the two.

If a company were to release a computer product in the USA called the I.P.A.D., would you defend their decision and say that there is a world of difference from Apple's trademark??

If a company were to release a computer product in the USA called the I.P.A.D., would you defend their decision and say that there is a world of difference from Apple's trademark??

No, I said I understood an acronym can be trademarked, I was asking of in their legal paper work initially if the TM was for iPad or the acronym I.P.A.D.? Does registering an acronym automatically cover the proper noun is what I am saying I guess.

I believe they started this action in 2010 and perhaps they have been maneuvering for a payout rather than really caring about their product. The pictured computer for example, did it even exist in 2010?

Whatever, just speculating, I am confident Apple know what they are doing.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

If a company were to release a computer product in the USA called the I.P.A.D., would you defend their decision and say that there is a world of difference from Apple's trademark??

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

I think it's time for the WTO to get involved. If China wants to enjoy the privileges of being a player in the world economy, it's time they stop acting like some adolescent 3rd-world country, accept their responsibilities and put an end to this sort of mickey mouse shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips

I also notice the name is really I.P.A.D. not iPad since it stands for Internet Personal Access Device, it is an acronym. I wonder why this fact hasn't been mentioned. There is surely a world of difference between the two. Of course I know you can trademark an acronym but I just wonder if this might be a loop hole.

Indeed, but it doesn't really matter because Mr. Yang, the guy in charge of all Proview companies including Proview Shenzen, sold all the use of iPad in various regions including mainland China to Apple at the end of 2009.

There's nothing to really sum this up except pure criminal behaviour, by global/ WTO standards, by Mr. Yang, Proview and the Chinese authorities.

Without going into my political tirades which I promised I wouldn't do in the iPad forum, this kind of behaviour is classic, well, unethical business practice, to say the least. The Hong Kong decision portrays how bad it really is, going as far as to characterise it as "conspiracy to cause injury", which certainly is not used lightly in the legal world.

As has been noted in the past, there's something very perverse about a country that generally takes a free-for-all view of piracy and knock-offs suddenly getting hard-nosed about trademark infringement. To be honest, I wonder how much of this is nationalism on the part of the courts, and how much is "If you help us win, I'll give you a cut."

If a company were to release a computer product in the USA called the I.P.A.D., would you defend their decision and say that there is a world of difference from Apple's trademark??

What decision are you asking if we would defend? Apple bought the worldwide rights to iPad from Proview. There are emails from a lawyer at the Proview, Shenzen (the one that's suing now) saying that it is fine for the British company to make the payment to the Proview, Taiwan subsidiary for the trademarks. Saying that it didn't matter which one gets the money since they were all owned by the same parent company.

As the Hong Kong court ruled last year Yang, the owner of all the Proviews, is trying to screw with Apple. He didn't realize that the UK company was going to turn the name over to Apple (lots of companies buy land, other companies, or IP legally in this way) and now he's mad because he thinks he missed a bigger payday.

Indeed, but it doesn't really matter because Mr. Yang, the guy in charge of all Proview companies including Proview Shenzen, sold all the use of iPad in various regions including mainland China to Apple at the end of 2009.

Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.

1a. There is only ONE person involved.
There is the counter-claim here and in the media that Proview Shenzhen is somehow removed from Proview Taiwan. This is highly incorrect. See the Hong Kong decision:

"Yang Long San, Rowell (“Yang”), a Taiwanese, is the founder of the Proview Group. He was at all material times the chairman and chief executive officer of Proview Holdings until he was adjudicated bankrupt on 2 August 2010. Other companies of the Proview Group that feature in these proceedings are Proview Electronics, a Taiwan company, Proview Shenzhen and Yoke Technology, both being Shenzhen companies. Yang was at all material times the responsible person and director of Proview Electronics. He was also the legal representative, general manager and chairman of both Proview Shenzhen and Yoke Technology and remains so despite his bankruptcy."

1b. Hence Mr. Yang is at all times the one and only person involved in this.

1c. The "oh it's the parent company" is, well, nonsense:

"Here, the conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the Agreement. Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yang’s control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the Agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to IP Application. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple."

The decision by some company to release a computer product named the I.P.A.D. in the USA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregInPrague

Apple bought the worldwide rights to iPad from Proview.

They bought the rights in 10 countries from a Taiwanese subsidiary. That company did not own the rights in China. Instead, a different subsidiary owned the Chinese rights.

The situation is like two brothers owning different houses in different countries. The Taiwanese brother sells all his real estate to Apple. The Chinese brother rightfully objects when Apple tries to evict him.

The Hong Kong Father (Proview International Holdings) is who you refer to when you say "Proview" without qualification. The parent company has no obligation to throw his Chinese son out in the street due to the actions of his Taiwanese son.

They bought the rights in 10 countries from a Taiwanese subsidiary. That company did not own the rights in China. Instead, a different subsidiary owned the Chinese rights.

The situation is like two brothers owning different houses in different countries. The Taiwanese brother sells all his real estate to Apple. The Chinese brother rightfully objects when Apple tries to evict him.

The Hong Kong Father (Proview International Holdings) is who you refer to when you say "Proview" without qualification. The parent company has no obligation to throw his Chinese son out in the street due to the actions of his Taiwanese son.

Incorrect, see above. There is no brother, father, mother, sister, uncle. It's all one guy.

Wow, I'm glad you were there and know all that went on in the communications and with the transaction. Stupid Apple for not thinking about buying the trademark for the most populous nation on earth.

/s

As you rightly imply, Apple is not dumb, Apple did buy the China Trademarks, again from the Hong Kong decision:

"...The Written Agreement and the Country Assignments executed on 23 December 2009 expressly stated that Proview Electronics was the proprietor of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks and that Proview Electronics warranted that it was the unencumbered sole owner of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks. The Country Assignment pertaining to the China Trademarks (the China Country Assignment) also recited that Proview Electronics was the proprietor of the China Trademarks. However, after Apple had announced the launch of iPads in January 2010, it was discovered that the China Trademarks were in fact registered in the name of Proview Shenzhen. The China Country Assignment was accordingly ineffective in assigning the China Trademarks to IP Application."

1a. There is only ONE person involved.
There is the counter-claim here and in the media that Proview Shenzhen is somehow removed from Proview Taiwan. This is highly incorrect. See the Hong Kong decision:

"Yang Long San, Rowell (Yang), a Taiwanese, is the founder of the Proview Group. He was at all material times the chairman and chief executive officer of Proview Holdings until he was adjudicated bankrupt on 2 August 2010. Other companies of the Proview Group that feature in these proceedings are Proview Electronics, a Taiwan company, Proview Shenzhen and Yoke Technology, both being Shenzhen companies. Yang was at all material times the responsible person and director of Proview Electronics. He was also the legal representative, general manager and chairman of both Proview Shenzhen and Yoke Technology and remains so despite his bankruptcy."

1b. Hence Mr. Yang is at all times the one and only person involved in this.

1c. The "oh it's the parent company" is, well, nonsense:

"Here, the conduct of all the defendants demonstrate that they have combined together with the common intention of injuring Apple and IP Application by acting in breach of the Agreement. Proview Holdings, Proview Electronics and Proview Shenzhen, all clearly under Yangs control, have refused to take any steps to ensure compliance with the Agreement so that the China Trademarks are properly assigned or transferred to IP Application. Instead, they attempted to exploit the situation as a business opportunity for the Proview Group by seeking an amount of US$10,000,000 from Apple."

So what? A Hong Kong court deciding that a Chinese Company must do something in China? Two Chinese courts disagree.

They bought the rights in 10 countries from a Taiwanese subsidiary. That company did not own the rights in China. Instead, a different subsidiary owned the Chinese rights.

The situation is like two brothers owning different houses in different countries. The Taiwanese brother sells all his real estate to Apple. The Chinese brother rightfully objects when Apple tries to evict him.

The Hong Kong Father (Proview International Holdings) is who you refer to when you say "Proview" without qualification. The parent company has no obligation to throw his Chinese son out in the street due to the actions of his Taiwanese son.

Please see the email scan from the Proview Shenzen lawyer at the bottom of the Forbes article. Then feel free to apologize for thinking you know everything about everything.

Wow, I'm glad you were there and know all that went on in the communications and with the transaction. Stupid Apple for not thinking about buying the trademark for the most populous nation on earth.

/s

I'd be surprised if they didn't think about it. I have no idea what went on "in the communication". I base my view on "what went on in the transaction" on what the Chinese courts have said that the contracts held, and not upon guesswork.

I'd be surprised if they didn't think about it. I have no idea what went on "in the communication". I base my view on "what went on in the transaction" on what the Chinese courts have said that the contracts held, and not upon guesswork.

For one thing, Hong Kong is a part of China since 1997 I believe. The court in Hong Kong was a high court. These two court rulings are lower courts and both rulings will be overturned on appeal.

As you rightly imply, Apple is not dumb, Apple did buy the China Trademarks, again from the Hong Kong decision:

"...The Written Agreement and the Country Assignments executed on 23 December 2009 expressly stated that Proview Electronics was the proprietor of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks and that Proview Electronics warranted that it was the unencumbered sole owner of the Subject Trademarks including the China Trademarks. The Country Assignment pertaining to the China Trademarks (the China Country Assignment) also recited that Proview Electronics was the proprietor of the China Trademarks. However, after Apple had announced the launch of iPads in January 2010, it was discovered that the China Trademarks were in fact registered in the name of Proview Shenzhen. The China Country Assignment was accordingly ineffective in assigning the China Trademarks to IP Application."

Great. So instead of proper due diligence, Apple got bamboozled by the Taiwanese subsidiary.

Apple can sue them based upon the misrepresentation. But they are destitute, so good luck with that one, Apple.

And did you ignore the conclusion of the Hong Kong Court?

Quote:

The China Country Assignment was accordingly ineffective in assigning the China Trademarks to IP Application

So even the Hong Cong court has ruled that Apple does NOT own the trademark in China?

I guess I shouldn't bother adding the "sarcasm off" symbol if people are going to ignore it...

Yes, i know that Apple bought it. It's Zither who has his head in the sand.

the head is obviously "in the ass" if you've seen the other posts from this troll.... ignore list works fine if other people would quit replying to the trolls, and stop quoting their ridiculous comments..

Let me pu this way: some decided to do buisness with mafia. After some time mafia came to "partner" and asked for 90% shares in profits.

Some people do not believe it or try to be blind. China is not free market coutry and it is manipulated by regime. Regime has courts in it its pockets. That's how it works in this stystem. I lived in this system. I was born in it. The only difference was it was Eastern Europe.

Let me pu this way: some decided to do buisness with mafia. After some time mafia came to "partner" and asked for 90% shares in profits.

Some people do not believe it or try to be blind. China is not free market coutry and it is manipulated by regime. Regime has courts in it its pockets. That's how it works in this stystem. I lived in this system. I was born in it. The only difference was it was Eastern Europe.

Lamenting over morons.

Thank you. That's what I've been trying to contribute here, that really, Asia, is the new wild wild west.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagicFingers

the head is obviously "in the ass" if you've seen the other posts from this troll.... ignore list works fine if other people would quit replying to the trolls, and stop quoting their ridiculous comments..

Indeed, but it doesn't really matter because Mr. Yang, the guy in charge of all Proview companies including Proview Shenzen, sold all the use of iPad in various regions including mainland China to Apple at the end of 2009.

That's what Apple is arguing. Well that they sold it to the proxy who then sold it to Apple. But Proview is saying no, they sold the rights to the countries they had the rights to, which didn't include China.

And a court in Hong Kong has basically said that the papers signed by Proview don't reflect said company's view and this claim is BS. That Apple has the rights in China. But due to the weird court arrangement in China, that court's finding only applies in Hong Kong. And the Chinese courts don't agree with the ruling.

What is left is likely to sue the parent company for acting in bad faith by them claiming to be selling rights they didn't actually hold. Which comes off like they were fine with some little company having the rights and wouldn't have said anything had it not turned out that the UK company was working on Apple's behalf (meaning that Proview feels they undersold the 'mark and would have demanded more money if they had known it was Apple etc)

Until then, I think Apple should halt all official sales and demand that the Chinese government support the import ban. Focus on keeping the exports in place until the iPad can be moved out of China and then do it. Loss of those jobs might change the courts minds.

He refers to "the trademark". Maybe he was referring to the trademark owned by the Taiwanese?

Maybe he was ignorant? Maybe he was mistaken? Maybe he was bamboozled too? Maybe he was in on the plan to fool Apple? Maybe ...

The letter is ambiguous as to the basic subject matter, and even if you assume he is referring to the Chinese trademark, it is not effective to show any transfer of that mark. At best, it is evidence that Apple was defrauded by the bankrupt Taiwanese subsidiary. good luck getting blood from a turnip.

Wrong. Apple never bought the Chinese rights to the name. They dealt with a Taiwanese subsidiary who did not own the rights in China.

Oops.

While this is apparently true, according to Apple who likely has the papers to back up the claim, Proview Taiwan didn't tell them that the "global" rights didn't include China at the time of purchase and in fact very possibly implied that the term did include said country.

it was only revealed after the Apple connection was. And if Apple's argument is correct, which the courts in Hong Kong say is, then Proview lied, or at least recanted, on said rights after discovering they could have gotten more money for the whole deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz

The situation is like two brothers owning different houses in different countries. The Taiwanese brother sells all his real estate to Apple. The Chinese brother rightfully objects when Apple tries to evict him..

Except that it wasn't the brother that sold the land. It was the Father, whose name is on the deed to both and thus is the legal owner.